Presentation on theme: "Würm Ice Age (110 000 – 10 000 BCE). Würm Ice Age : Chronology."— Presentation transcript:
Würm Ice Age (110 000 – 10 000 BCE)
Würm Ice Age : Chronology
Würm Ice Age : Climate Record
Würm : map
Holocene : Climate Record
The Three Diffusion Models of the IE Languages Ursprache (proto-language) Urvolk (first people) Urheimat (homeland) Hypothesis I : Invasionist Hypothesis II : Farming Hypothesis III : Continuity
Archaeologic Cultures in Western Europe during the Holocene
Model I : Invasionist (Kossinna) Theoretician : Gustav Kossinna - 1911 Homeland : Northern Germany Date : 4000 BCE Expansion Mode : Military Conquest → Horse + Bronze Weapons + Wheel –Indigeneous Population (AltEuropäische) = peasants + matriarcal (Mother Goddess) –Proto-Indo-Europeans : Nomadic Warriors + patriarcal
Model I : Invasionist (Kossinna) - map
Model I : Invasionist (Gimbutas) Theoretician : Marija Gimbutas Homeland : Ukraine 1960 Date : 3000 BCE Expansion Mode : Military Conquest → Horse + Bronze Weapons –Indigeneous Population (AltEuropäische) = peasants + matriarcal (Mother Goddess) –Proto-Indo-Europeans : Nomadic Warriors + patriarcal
Model I : Invasionist (Gimbutas) - map
Objections Which proofs does the Invasionist Model requires ? An archaeologic culture stretching from the homeland to western Europe and India. No. Items attesting the use of horses in combat. No. Archeologic attestation of significant battles. No. A good reason to move from the homeland : why should they bother to go anywhere else ? No. « The need for conquest ». A highly hierarchized society allowing the constitution of a warrior caste. No.
What do we actually have ? A common lexical stock BUT –Very few words are common to ALL the IE languages (around 10) –Some words may have been borrowed from neighbouring languages (ex; the numbers) : inheritance vs. borrowing. Common grammatical features (verb and noun flexion, affixation) : very little chance of borrowing
Model II: Neolithic Dispersal Theory (Colin Renfrew) An archaeologic culture stretching from the homeland to western Europe and India : the spread of farming from the Fertile Crescent to North-Western Europe (-7000/- 3000 BCE) Items attesting the use of horses in combat. No combat Archeologic attestation of significant battles. No battles A good reason to move from the homeland : the demographic rise occasioned by agriculture. A highly hierarchized society allowing the constitution of a warrior caste. No hierarchized society needed.
Model II: Neolithic Dispersal Theory : principles - Hunter-Gatherers : 10km² = 1 people. One side = 3,3km. 30 people = 30 x 10 = 300km². One side = 17km - Farming : 1km² = 10 people. 300km² = 3000 people Objections : - Many PIE roots are connected with farming. Renfrew’s urvolk did not know farming originally - No IE toponymy in the Near-East. - No correlation between the alleged migrations and the languages phylogeny *aretrom (plough): aratrum, arazr, ardhr (VI), arklas (Lit), ralo (Pl) *gwrawon (millstone): yugam (Sk), breo (Br.), kvern (Is), zrunuvi (OS) *yugom (yoke): yugam (Sk), igo (OS), juk (Got), ieo (Br), yukan (Hit).
Model III: Palaeolithic Continuity Theory Theoretician : Mario Alinei 1990 Homeland : Refugees in Ice Age Europe (Spain, Balkans, Ukraine) Date : 20 000 BCE Expansion Mode : No expansion Objection : - Where do the substrata languages (Iberian, Basque, Etruscan, Minoan, etc.) come from ?
Summary I- Invasionist : 3000 BCE in Ukraine, military conquest of Europe and Asia (Kossinna – Gimbutas) II- Neolithic Dispersal Theory: 6000 BCE in the Near East, pacific spread of farmers (Renfrew) III- Palaeolithic Continuity Theory : 20 000 BCE in Europe, without migration.